Are "pro-lifers" okay with allowing rape if stopping him would involve murder?
There is a concept called body autonomy. Its generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. Its why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent. If a man had sex with a woman and she later withdrew consent, but he continued anyway, that would be rape. If shooting him was the only way to stop him, most conservatives would be okay with that. Why does the same logic not apply to fetuses?
A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a persons continuous consent. If they deny and withdraw their consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they can also legally deny me their use. By saying a fetus has a right to someone’s body parts until it’s born, despite the pregnant person’s wishes, you are doing two things.
1. Granting a fetus more rights to other people’s bodies than any born person.
2. Awarding a pregnant person less rights to their body than a corpse.
"A fetus is there by permission? The fetus didn't ask to be put there by someone who didn't want him/her ." Nor did the mother ask for the fetus to be there.